A TREND IN LAWSUITS IS UNFOLDING: suing not just the author of alleged infringing content, but the platform itself. Consider the example of an ongoing matter — the Isha Foundation case. After a YouTube video was uploaded defaming the spiritual leader Jaggi Vasudev, the Foundation sued not only the video’s author, but explicitly named Google LLC & Ors. as respondents. The Delhi High Court directed Google LLC, X Corp, and Meta Platforms to pull down the video. The question is whether tech giants are being pulled into the arena as co-defendants for third-party content.
Under India’s legal framework, Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 shields intermediaries only if they act as passive conduits and follow due-diligence rules. Courts have interpreted “actual knowledge” to mean a formal court or government order. Indian platforms must comply with takedown demands from authorities or face liability. In practice, an intermediary “has no choice but to comply with the Centre’s directions to continue operations,” and if it does so it “generally avoid[s] further legal consequences”. The intermediaries cannot pick and choose which orders to follow – if a court orders content to be removed, they must remove it promptly to keep the shield of Section 79.
Listing “intermediary” such as Google or Facebook as co-defendants follows a broader pattern of suing platforms and users together over allegedly defamatory or false content. Another example is the Vishakha Industries v. Google litigation: Vishakha sued Google in 2009 for defamation due to content in a Google group. The Delhi High Court (later upheld by the Supreme Court) held that pre-2009 Section 79 did not shield Google at all – because at that time safe harbor applied only to IT Act violations, not civil defamation (After the 2009 amendment, the law does cover all third-party content, but only once a court order directs removal).
